Ethical dilemma in genomic healthcare

6.2 Online Ethical Debate Identify an ethical dilemma related to genomic healthcare issues. Each student needs to select their own unique scenario. Please do NOT duplicate material. Incorporate the ethical principle violated by the dilemma suggested. Be creative in your approach to the presentation of the debate scenario. Each student works independently on this assignment. Present your analysis, thoughts and arguments on the discussion forum and discuss rationale. Each student in the course needs to respond to a total of 2 students (minimum of 3 post) Here are some ideas to organize your debate: Introduction Outline your case with an introduction that states your main arguments and explains the general thrust of your case. This must be done briefly since the most important thing is to get on and actually argue it. Case Having outlined the main argument, then begin to build a case (the parts). Divide your case into a few arguments (parts) and justify your arguments with basic logic, worked examples, statistics, and quotes. Debating is all about the strategy of proof. Proof, or evidence, supports your assertion and develops an argument. It is usually best to put the most important arguments first. Here is an example of a case outline: The media exert more influence over what people think than the government does. This is true for three reasons. Firstly, most people base their votes on what they see and hear in the media. Secondly, the media can set the political agenda between elections by deciding what issues to report and in how much detail. Thirdly, the media have successfully demonized politicians over the last ten years so that now people are more likely to believe journalists than politicians. All of the arguments in this case outline are debatable (almost immediately you can see the counterarguments), but they give the case a wide range which covers all kinds of issues. The trick is not to come up with a watertight case, but a well-argued one. Think: Can I argue that? Rebuttal of the Parts Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed. These are the basics of rebuttal and almost every argument can be found wanting in at least one of these components. Here are a few examples: Compulsory euthanasia at age 70 would save the country money in pensions and healthcare. This is true but is morally flawed. Banning cigarette product placement in films will cause more young people to smoke because it will make smoking more mysterious and tabooer. This is logically flawed; the ban would be more likely to stop the steady stream of images which make smoking seem attractive and glamorous and actually reduce the number of young people smoking. I will then look at the economic issues… Blah..blah..blah…(5 minutes later and still no mention of the economic issues) This is a clear failure to explain a major part of the case and attention should be drawn to it. Even better is when a speaker starts with, to win this debate there are three things I must do…. If the speaker fails to do any of those things, you can then hang her or him by the noose by repeating their exact words by his or her own admission he or she cannot have won the debate. Ask yourself how the other side approached the case. Is their methodology flawed? Consider what tasks the other side set themselves (if any) and whether they have in fact addressed these. Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and what assumptions it makes. Try to refute these. Take the main arguments and do the same thing. It is not worth repeating a point of rebuttal that has been used by someone else already, but you can refer to it to show that the argument has not stood up. It is not necessary to correct every example used. You wont have time and your aim is to show the other sides case to be flawed in the key areas. Conclusion At the end, once 2 students have responded, it is useful to briefly summarize and agree or disagree with the arguement. atleast 250 words 3 sources